Really, you don't think the problem might lie not in guns, but in a legal/judicial system that repeatedly releases violent criminals back on the street. And a legislature that has created a failed war on drugs and fueled an entire criminal underworld.
Because all that stuff will be copyrighted and patented and somehow owned by large mega corporations who will say you're not allowed to have square corners or rounded door knobs on your house because they own the patent on them.
Do you realize rifles are used in less murders than bludgeoning weapons. And semi-automatic rifles (ala so called "assault weapons") are only a small percentage of that greater number.
So why focus all the effort on a gun that is not even the problem. Just cause it "looks scary" to 1D10T5 errors?
Personal arms should be legal. Squad based arms should only be owned by a collective community (ie: cannons, machine guns, etc) be owned by towns.
Which they pretty much are, based on how many law enforcement units now have light tanks, fully automatic rifles and machine guns, and incendiary grenades. (ie: LAPD)
In fact, the Aurora theater shooter could have killed more people with $10 than he did with the guns. Simply, penny lock the doors. Walk in with 2 gallons of gas and a lighter. Everyone would have been burned to death. And none would have escaped. Evil will find a way.
Most of American murders are localized in a less than five cities. Which also have far far many other problems. Corruption, major gun control, poor schools, etc.
Firearm deaths are irrelevant. Total homocides are what matters. If you ban guns but more people are killed with knives. It doesn't matter if your firearm deaths went down.
Second, we have a gang problem fueld by a misguided drug war.
Third, we have a very different legal system, one that has a habit of re-releasing violent criminals time and again. 85% of crime is done by the same criminals....
So silly, it's not the gun manufacturers. You think NY's 7 round magazine law was bad for business. Now suddenly every gun owner in NY needed new magazines. Which could be sold for a premium. Nope, that was good for gun manufacturers.
Even banning civilian gun ownership would really only hurt the small manufacturers. Nope, the gun lobby is often dragged kicking and screaming by gun owners.
Check out the Pennsylvania Outdoor Show, in which the NSSF (gun lobby) tried to be gentle, and we tore the gun lobby a new one. Until they got on board with the general gun owning public.
The 2nd Amendment was for the protection of society. That meant from foreign, domestic and criminal. But if you study the documents and statements at the time, it is clear that the authors felt the number one threat the potential threat of one's own government. Considering they had just suffered greatly at the hands of their own government.
Actually, the NRA was not about hunters. It was due to the fact that after the Civil War, it was noted that northerners were far less adept marksman than southerners. Largely due to the fact that hunting in much of the north had diminished with the advent of industry. Where as it was still common in the south.
The NRA was established to help ensure that Americans were well equipped skill wise to be able to respond to a call for defense if neded.
"a well regulated militia",
Did NOT mean regulations like today. It meant disciplined and capable.
"They buy so much they create shortages which in turn fuel their paranoia" And DHS placing an order for 1.5 billion rounds over 5 years isn't fueling it either? That's about 3x the rounds per person the military is using. And our military is in an active state of war. Just something to consider.
"The worst part about it is that most of those guns will end up stolen and on the streets at some point in the very near future."
And this statement is based on zero proof of evidence.
No, there would be processes that would assess fair market value. In other words, a CD is usually a $10-$20 price. So $30-$40 might be tolerated, but anything beyond that could have a complaint filed with the copyright office.
The point is public availability of publicly available works.
(In house software for a company, a painting you made, your family video, are not considered works made available to the public.)
But if you wrote a book, and it's no longer being published for sale. Then it becomes okay for others to share it. (There'd be some tweaking, because perhaps it would be something like 5 years + 2 years. So that a publisher who hasn't published a book/album/etc in 5 years loses their rights back to the author/artist, who then has 2 years to release it to the public. Be it print on demand, download for donation, etc.
Well, lets say that every open source work lost their copyright after 5 years. What is the big focus of those copyrights? To ensure that the code is available to all... not sure if they would really be needed if our patent system was not so broken.
But this would be more in regards to publicly sold (licensed as RIAA likes to say) works. If someone found a private home video of my wife, well....that's not a published work. I could sue them for theft. And cease and desist the work as not a publicly available work..
"Copyright is for controlling distribution of a work you've created. Not necessarily making money off of it." We can argue that....but I'll grant it. And I should have clarified, this is for works published for sale to the public.
Slashdot Mirror
Really, you don't think the problem might lie not in guns, but in a legal/judicial system that repeatedly releases violent criminals back on the street. And a legislature that has created a failed war on drugs and fueled an entire criminal underworld.
Yup and only white southernors and non-Irish/Italian northernors should be given gun permits.
History of gun control has ALWAYS been elitist.
The wealthy are still allowed to have fully automatic machine guns. Average folks, not so much.
You need to learn how to read.
They did a test show with two different cartridges. The second was a high pressure round.
They did another test of just the barrel, and fired 11 rounds before failure.
This is a prototype. I expect a 100 round barrel may be developed in the future.
Because all that stuff will be copyrighted and patented and somehow owned by large mega corporations who will say you're not allowed to have square corners or rounded door knobs on your house because they own the patent on them.
Heck, and do you know how many "real guns" have accidentally made it through security. Hundreds....
You can't get a plastic gun through airpor security....
As the detectors and x-ray machines sense density and hardness. Not just metal. So this would still show up.
Do you realize rifles are used in less murders than bludgeoning weapons. And semi-automatic rifles (ala so called "assault weapons") are only a small percentage of that greater number.
So why focus all the effort on a gun that is not even the problem. Just cause it "looks scary" to 1D10T5 errors?
Personal arms should be legal. Squad based arms should only be owned by a collective community (ie: cannons, machine guns, etc) be owned by towns.
Which they pretty much are, based on how many law enforcement units now have light tanks, fully automatic rifles and machine guns, and incendiary grenades. (ie: LAPD)
Right, he'd have used pressure cookers.
In fact, the Aurora theater shooter could have killed more people with $10 than he did with the guns. Simply, penny lock the doors. Walk in with 2 gallons of gas and a lighter. Everyone would have been burned to death. And none would have escaped. Evil will find a way.
You are way more likely to die from a knife wound than a bullet wound.
In fact, most law enforcement officers I've met say that they're far far more concerned about being stabbed than shot.
Let's not forget they account for murders differently in the UK.
=)
I am going to say that if you were shot that many times, you either were in the bad neighborhoods of Baltimore city.
Or you were tresspassing...
Fairly good actually... first hit to the back of the head. And they're probably on the ground.
I think the difference is that Europe didn't have the widespread incidence of racial slavery nor the length of legacy of it.
And I believe that is a major factor into American socio-economic issues.
Most of American murders are localized in a less than five cities. Which also have far far many other problems. Corruption, major gun control, poor schools, etc.
1). surely the Police should be sorting out these problems rather than individuals taking the law into their own hands
When I called 9-1-1 for a man who was making death threats against a cashier. There response was "It's New Haven, what'd'ya expect us to do about it."
Police are good for traffic fund raisers and police reports.
Firearm deaths are irrelevant. Total homocides are what matters. If you ban guns but more people are killed with knives. It doesn't matter if your firearm deaths went down.
Second, we have a gang problem fueld by a misguided drug war.
Third, we have a very different legal system, one that has a habit of re-releasing violent criminals time and again. 85% of crime is done by the same criminals....
Funny, you hit the nail on the nose. It's a free speech (distribution of information) issue. And yet you get modded down for the truth.
Please mod this as insightful.
So silly, it's not the gun manufacturers. You think NY's 7 round magazine law was bad for business. Now suddenly every gun owner in NY needed new magazines. Which could be sold for a premium. Nope, that was good for gun manufacturers.
Even banning civilian gun ownership would really only hurt the small manufacturers. Nope, the gun lobby is often dragged kicking and screaming by gun owners.
Check out the Pennsylvania Outdoor Show, in which the NSSF (gun lobby) tried to be gentle, and we tore the gun lobby a new one. Until they got on board with the general gun owning public.
You are so so far off it's not even funny.
The 2nd Amendment was for the protection of society. That meant from foreign, domestic and criminal. But if you study the documents and statements at the time, it is clear that the authors felt the number one threat the potential threat of one's own government. Considering they had just suffered greatly at the hands of their own government.
Actually, the NRA was not about hunters. It was due to the fact that after the Civil War, it was noted that northerners were far less adept marksman than southerners. Largely due to the fact that hunting in much of the north had diminished with the advent of industry. Where as it was still common in the south.
The NRA was established to help ensure that Americans were well equipped skill wise to be able to respond to a call for defense if neded.
"a well regulated militia",
Did NOT mean regulations like today. It meant disciplined and capable.
"They buy so much they create shortages which in turn fuel their paranoia"
And DHS placing an order for 1.5 billion rounds over 5 years isn't fueling it either? That's about 3x the rounds per person the military is using. And our military is in an active state of war. Just something to consider.
"The worst part about it is that most of those guns will end up stolen and on the streets at some point in the very near future."
And this statement is based on zero proof of evidence.
Blink Blink Revolution...
***
Blink Right Eye
Now Left,
Right again,
Left twice....
You did it!!!!
No, there would be processes that would assess fair market value. In other words, a CD is usually a $10-$20 price. So $30-$40 might be tolerated, but anything beyond that could have a complaint filed with the copyright office.
Agreed....
The point is public availability of publicly available works.
(In house software for a company, a painting you made, your family video, are not considered works made available to the public.)
But if you wrote a book, and it's no longer being published for sale. Then it becomes okay for others to share it.
(There'd be some tweaking, because perhaps it would be something like 5 years + 2 years. So that a publisher who hasn't published a book/album/etc in 5 years loses their rights back to the author/artist, who then has 2 years to release it to the public. Be it print on demand, download for donation, etc.
So you could use older versions of software...why not. Okay, 7 years...
But this would allow all those old Atari games from being lost forever.
Well, lets say that every open source work lost their copyright after 5 years. What is the big focus of those copyrights? To ensure that the code is available to all... not sure if they would really be needed if our patent system was not so broken.
But this would be more in regards to publicly sold (licensed as RIAA likes to say) works. If someone found a private home video of my wife, well....that's not a published work. I could sue them for theft. And cease and desist the work as not a publicly available work..
"Copyright is for controlling distribution of a work you've created. Not necessarily making money off of it."
We can argue that....but I'll grant it. And I should have clarified, this is for works published for sale to the public.